Author Archives

Contact The Cresset

Contact us at the above email address to submit Letters to the Editor or for concerns related to current subscriptions, including address corrections, missed-issue notifications, and all other communications regarding current subscriptions.

More information

Mission Statement

The Cresset, a journal of commentary on literature, the arts, and public affairs, explores ideas and trends in contemporary culture from a perspective grounded in the Lutheran tradition of scholarship, freedom, and faith while informed by the wisdom of the broader Christian community.

Just before his
recent death, the noted biologist-theologian
Arthur Peacocke composed a final essay that in brief chapters summarizes his
position in the religion and science conversation on which he has been a major
influence. The essay itself is just more than fifty pages, but Philip Clayton, also
an important thinker in this dialogue,
has brought together
additional essays from some of Peacocke’s friends and admirers in the dialogue
to respond to the short essay. All of the contributors are scholars known
already for their own work in religion and science, so Clayton has served us well in giving us a
collection of essays from leading scholars commenting on the work of Arthur Peacocke.
That in itself recommends this volume for those interested in the field or for
students who want to be introduced to the
most important work being done.

My comments will be
a review of the entire book since to comment on Peacocke in particular would only serve to add one more voice
to an already crowded field. My interest is to assess the project as a whole
from my perspective built on twenty years also teaching and writing in this
field and having been engaged as a colleague and in conversation with many of
the authors in this volume. I bring concerns that are especially my own, although I believe this may help to put the volume
into some perspective. My interests have focused on whether the dialogue is
presented as a fair representation of all who should be involved. Does this
picture of the dialogue invite a multi-religious conversation? Does the book
give us a real interaction between scientists and religious thinkers? Finally, does the volume suggest practical applications for
the conversation? I feel a bit encouraged to approach this text through the
lens of my interests because Peacocke seems genuinely also to desire to address
precisely these elements as key to a successful dialogue between science and
religion.

The first matter is
compelling in that Peacocke is so keen on showing how different religious
traditions can and should be involved in the conversation. His effort to forge
a Christian point of view that can allow for other religious perspectives is a
notable feature of his essay. We see quickly, however, that the essay is clearly an effort to work out a
specifically Christian theological view that focuses attention on specifically
Christian faith tenets. Peacocke’s efforts are understandable as
he is clear about his project from the outset and, at
least, he tries to show how such a
particular perspective can open up to conversation with those who are
differently religious and even those who declare themselves not to be religious
at all. In addition,
Peacocke does not
aim at a defense of Christian views. Consistent with his work throughout, Peacocke asks whether a specifically Christian view
make sense to anyone who also takes science seriously. This means that Peacocke
opens the Christian claims to honest critique based on what we think we know
about reality according to the sciences. This approach is fully amenable to any
other religious thinker and for those who also are religious skeptics. All are
welcome to the conversation.

The issue for me
can be found in the essays that come from his commentators. All are, with the possible exception of one, confessing Christians. There are no other voices
represented by this collection. That is not so problematic as the actual
direction of the essays. Clearly there are those who are ready to take issue
with Peacocke in different ways (Drees and Ward are two who are likely at
different ends of the spectrum),
but they do so
entirely within the framework of a Christian debate. Others may find this
entertaining and instructive in a limited sense, but
the contributing authors so eager to take on Peacocke’s project with academic rigor but also with more
than a high degree of respect end up making the conversation pretty much an
intra-Christian debate. Perhaps Karl Peters and Don Braxton can be seen as
exceptions but neither of them actually pushes for a broader discussion of the
religions.

My second interest
is also perplexing to me. Peacocke surely represents a thinker who participates
as both a scientist and a theologian. Others like Drees and Russell have done
work as scientists. However,
the approach taken
by both Peacocke and his commentators is fundamentally
theological/philosophical. Even when science is brought to the discussion, the material is present as a component of a
theological problem. Again,
one cannot blame
Peacocke for this, since he says from the outset
that this is a theological treatise. Following on that lead the others focus
essentially on that task. There is much to be done in that effort, but I am amazed that there are no scientists, not to mention the possible real scientific skeptic, who were invited to comment as scientists. We have
theologians essentially describing science,
some who are
obviously very knowledgeable. Still,
we lose some of the
perspective that this is after all a science and religion dialogue. Perhaps
even more perplexing is that the agenda is clearly set as a theological agenda
so that, even if scientists were to be
involved, it is not fully clear in what way
they would contribute to this discussion. Even Peacocke’s notion of a hierarchy of complexity that leads to
his emergentist perspective can open the door to the appearance that science
does not participate in the discussion past a certain point. Is this a dialogue
then? This is not Peacocke’s intent, I believe. He would leave open the possibility that
science can bring critical questions at every level and thus challenge
theological claims about reality, that very reality that the
sciences also attempt to describe.

Perhaps it is clear
that my turning this review toward the particular interests I have named is a
way for me to voice my disappointments with the volume. These are the very
areas that I find to be weakest in this text. Even as I turn to my last point, I must again wonder why there is so little direction
given in shaping a practical application of all of this conversation. To be
sure, Peacocke assures us that there is
a practical aim for his theology,
but this has to do
with the practice of religion as such. He develops a thoroughly sacramental
view rooted in both his creation theology and in his Christology. And there are
those who take him up on these themes,
notably Karl Peters, Don Braxton,
and Ann Pederson.
Pederson’s essay does indeed hint at an
issue, and Peacocke is appropriately
chastised for not taking account of feminist contributions. But even this push
does not actually eventuate in raising the very specific practical, dare we say ethical/political goals of much of
feminist thought.

More concerning is
that the contributors,
Peacocke and Heftier
to be sure, have often urged that this
dialogue must have the aim of contributing to a better, more wholesome human situation, on a global scale one would hope. I believe that
most if not all of those who have written for this volume share this aim. But
we hear little about ecology or the environment generally, about disease and medical research, about the dire consequences of global warming and
what this means for the poor,
the starving, the desperate of the planet. The sacramental view
proposed by Peacocke could be and is for these thinkers in their own right a
stepping stone for looking closely at these issues, but not in this volume. It is striking that a final
word is added by Peacocke as he narrates his experience of facing death because
of the ever prominent effects of cancer. Surely, this
is a place for real conversation between science and religion. Still, this final “Nunc Dimittis” as Peacocke calls it remains a personal narrative.
That is perhaps appropriate in this case,
but the volume falls
short of pushing the conversation past the internal theological quandaries
toward the global issues that I think all of these scholars would agree are
even more pressing concerns for the great majority of people as well as for the
religions as such.

But my comments follow after I
have already given my recommendation for what is in the book. There is in
Peacocke’s essay a beautiful and elegant
summary of his theology as it has developed over the years, and the conversation that ensues surely brings
together a very high class of thinkers who have engaged in both honoring
Peacocke’s contribution as well as showing
how it does become the basis for a lively discussion. That is the marvel of
Arthur Peacocke as a major player and shaper of an honest dialogue between the
sciences and the religions.